LPL4802
ASSIGNMENT 1 (SEMESTER 1)
DUE 26 MARCH 2026
JORDAAN v ROAD ACCIDENT FUND (2022/03746) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1260
In Jordaan v Road Accident Fund, the Gauteng Division of the High Court addressed
procedural and substantive issues arising from a motor vehicle collision on 5 May 2018. 1
The plaintiff, Ms Jeanine Maria Jordaan, sustained serious personal injuries and claimed
loss of support for herself and her two minor children following the death of the primary
breadwinner.2 The RAF admitted negligence by its insured driver, but liability for
damages remained contested.3
Initially, the plaintiff’s particulars of claim sought R2 300 000, but a substantial late
amendment increased the claim to approximately R8 856 630, reflecting updated
projections for medical costs, loss of income, and support.4 The plaintiff also applied for
an interim payment under Rule 34A of the Uniform Rules of Court and section 17(6) of
the Road Accident Fund Act.5
Litis Contestatio & Substantial Amendments to Quantum
A key procedural question concerned litis contestatio, the stage at which the issues
between parties are fixed.⁶ The court held that pleadings in delictual matters remain
open until the defendant files a plea or the time for plea expires.⁷ Because the RAF had
1
Jordaan v RAF (2023) ZAGPJHC 1260.
2
Ibid.
3
Ibid.
4
Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 34A; RAF Act 56 of 1996, s 17(6).
5
Marnewick CG, Litigation Skills for South African Lawyers, 5th ed. (2024) LexisNexis.
Disclaimer:
All materials are for study assistance only. We do not condone academic dishonesty. Use at your own risk.
We are not liable for any consequences arising from misuse.
Redistribution, resale, or sharing without permission is prohibited.
ASSIGNMENT 1 (SEMESTER 1)
DUE 26 MARCH 2026
JORDAAN v ROAD ACCIDENT FUND (2022/03746) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1260
In Jordaan v Road Accident Fund, the Gauteng Division of the High Court addressed
procedural and substantive issues arising from a motor vehicle collision on 5 May 2018. 1
The plaintiff, Ms Jeanine Maria Jordaan, sustained serious personal injuries and claimed
loss of support for herself and her two minor children following the death of the primary
breadwinner.2 The RAF admitted negligence by its insured driver, but liability for
damages remained contested.3
Initially, the plaintiff’s particulars of claim sought R2 300 000, but a substantial late
amendment increased the claim to approximately R8 856 630, reflecting updated
projections for medical costs, loss of income, and support.4 The plaintiff also applied for
an interim payment under Rule 34A of the Uniform Rules of Court and section 17(6) of
the Road Accident Fund Act.5
Litis Contestatio & Substantial Amendments to Quantum
A key procedural question concerned litis contestatio, the stage at which the issues
between parties are fixed.⁶ The court held that pleadings in delictual matters remain
open until the defendant files a plea or the time for plea expires.⁷ Because the RAF had
1
Jordaan v RAF (2023) ZAGPJHC 1260.
2
Ibid.
3
Ibid.
4
Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 34A; RAF Act 56 of 1996, s 17(6).
5
Marnewick CG, Litigation Skills for South African Lawyers, 5th ed. (2024) LexisNexis.
Disclaimer:
All materials are for study assistance only. We do not condone academic dishonesty. Use at your own risk.
We are not liable for any consequences arising from misuse.
Redistribution, resale, or sharing without permission is prohibited.
